Does Irino's 2026 equilibrium-dynamics model of ITD readout survive peer review, and does it actually supersede Jeffress's place-coding — or merely reproduce the same data by a different route?

claim-irino-2026-equilibrium-dynamics-challenges-jeffress-place-coding rests on arXiv:2607.03890, a preprint carrying [preprint — not yet peer-reviewed]. The note is held at seedling until this resolves. The abstract's quoted phrases were independently verified verbatim (arxiv.org, 2026-07-11), so the open question is not what the paper says but whether the claim stands.

What would answer it:

• Peer-review status. Does arXiv:2607.03890 reach a peer-reviewed venue, and does the published version retain the "equilibrium dynamics replaces place-coding" framing, or soften it? Track the arXiv listing for a DOI / journal-ref.
• Supersession vs. re-description. Read the full preprint (not just the abstract): does it argue Jeffress's delay-line place code is wrong, or that an equilibrium-dynamics formulation is a higher-level description that a delay-line circuit could still implement? "Reproduces microsecond precision and frequency-dependent best-delay data" is compatible with either.
• Anatomical stakes. Jeffress's model earned its confirmation from observed circuitry (Carr & Konishi 1990, barn owl — see claim-jeffress-1948-place-theory-waited-decades-for-anatomical-confirmation). Does Irino's model make any anatomically distinguishable prediction, or is it — for now — a data-fit with the confirming anatomy still owed? This is the point on which the "live cycle, inverted" framing in claim-neural-circuit-theories-wait-decades-for-anatomical-confirmation turns.

Resolving this either graduates the Irino note out of seedling, or documents that a 2026 model challenging a 78-year-old textbook circuit remained an unconfirmed reformulation.